Choose country

Smitten species?

Published: 18 April 2008 (GMT+10)

The headline in the February issue of Scientific American read ‘Lovers,
not fighters’.1 In
the article, a team of evolutionary geneticists is said to have discovered the signature
of Homo erectus in the human genome. Publishing its results in the January
issue of Genetics, the University of Arizona research team believes it
found evidence of interbreeding between modern humans and Homo erectus.

Focusing on the X chromosome, the geneticists utilized molecular clock analysis
to date certain regions of the genome that reflect the genetic diversity of human
history. Based on certain genetic fingerprints, the scientists believe that modern
humans and Homo erectus may have interbred as long ago as 2.3 million years.

Competing creationist perspectives

Though this is the first study of its kind, this indirect genetic evidence challenges
old-earth creation views, such as those of Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe
(RTB). Such old-earth creationists argue that Adam and Eve were real, historical
individuals specially created about 50,000 years ago, possibly up to 100,000 years
ago. Therefore, in order to maintain any semblance of consistency with the Genesis
genealogies, they propose that Homo erectus was a man-like animal created
before Adam and Eve. On the other hand, young-earth creationists generally posit
that Homo erectus was a fully human descendant of Adam and Eve—see
Turkana boy getting past the
propaganda and Putting chimpanzees,
hominids, and humans in their proper place.

initial genetic evidence seems to strengthen the view that Homo erectus
and modern
humans were indeed the same species

Thus, old-earth creationists would not expect any genetic evidence for interbreeding
between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens, while we are encouraged
when such conclusions are drawn even by evolutionary scientists. Though it is premature
to make any conclusive scientific judgments, the initial genetic evidence seems
to strengthen the view that Homo erectus and modern humans were indeed
the same species.

Direct DNA analysis

If we could obtain direct Homo erectus DNA sequences, then more conclusive
inferences could be drawn from the data. Though old-earth creationists, such as
RTB, believe Homo erectus specimens are likely far too old to extract actual
DNA sequences,2 young-earth
creationists posit much younger ages for Homo erectus. As a result, we
would not be surprised if some Homo erectus fossils possess DNA for genetic
analysis. There is a precedent for such a view, since many scientists were initially
incredulous before obtaining legitimate DNA samples from ‘ancient’ Neanderthals.

Modern humans, Homo erectus, and moral depravity

Dr. Fuz Rana, of RTB, raised a provocative issue regarding the implications of potential
interbreeding between Homo erectus and modern humans. In his February 28th
‘Science News Flash’ podcast,3
Dr. Rana stated that the RTB model predicts that Homoerectus and modern
humans should be biologically and behaviorally distinct from one another. But he
then adds the caveat that, due to moral depravity, modern humans may have in fact
interbred with the Homo erectus ‘animals’. He cites Old Testament
warnings against bestiality and the depravity of mankind at the Babel dispersion.

However, this raises a number of serious questions. If they could interbreed and
produce fertile offspring, then wouldn’t they be the same biological species,
according to the modern-day definition? Even a number of evolutionary anthropologists,
such as Milford Wolpoff and Alan Thorne, believe Homo erectus and modern
humans should be classified as the same species. He finishes by stating that genetic
evidence of Homo erectus and modern human interbreeding would be uncomfortable
for the RTB model, but not lethal. This seems to contradict RTB’s public position
that Homo erectus and modern humans are definitively distinct from one
another, both biologically and anatomically. These statements appear to make the
RTB model unfalsifiable in this aspect. What evidence could ever contradict their
human origins model? Even definitive anatomical evidence of interbreeding between
modern humans and so-called ‘hominids’ (which already exists4 ) could be dismissed as mere evidence of bestiality,
despite the fact that by definition, humans cannot interbreed with other species.

According to various sources,5
the old Soviet Union’s top animal-breeding scientist, Ilya Ivanov, attempted
multiple hybridization experiments between monkeys and humans, as well as chimpanzees
and humans. All attempts failed.

Molecular clock inaccuracies

the credibility of the young-earth model of human origins has been further enhanced

Dr. Rana does raise a valid point in questioning the accuracy of molecular clock
analysis. Though RTB accepts the validity of most long-age dating methods, it does
realize that molecular clock dating is often unreliable, based on a number of assumptions,
and at odds with fossil dates. The young-earth community is highly skeptical of
molecular clock dating—obviously, because it contradicts the Bible, but also
in part due to numerous acknowledged discrepancies with the fossil record and present-day
mutational rates—see
A shrinking date for Eve . This is why genetic research based solely on
molecular clock analysis must be critically analyzed.6

More testing

Increased genetic testing is encouraged by the creation science community. The results
discussed here are preliminary and don’t provide concrete resolutions, but
even at this preliminary stage, the credibility of the young-earth model of human
origins has been further enhanced.

However, they do not dispute the high ‘ages’ in
general placed on erectus, placing them well before RTB’s dates for Adam.
This is the very reason why RTB is compelled to classify such specimens as non-human.
Return to text.

Your subscription already exists. We have just sent you an email that will allow you to update your details.

Thanks for subscribing

Check your email!(If you haven’t received your first email within a few minutes, try checking your spam folder.)

You are leaving CREATION.com

We have supplied this link to an article on an external website in good faith. But we cannot assume responsibility for, nor be taken as endorsing in any way, any other content or links on any such site. Even the article we are directing you to could, in principle, change without notice on sites we do not control.

Affiliated Sites

Creation Ministries International (CMI) exists to support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history.

CMI has offices in Australia, Canada, Singapore, New Zealand, United Kingdom, South Africa and United States of America.